audio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that operations are runtime-only and do not persist, which is useful for the agent. While annotations indicate the tool is mutable and non-idempotent, the description enhances this with the temporary-scope trait. It doesn't fully detail side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action list using a clean, consistent format. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text. The structure makes scanning easy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and 4 actions, the description covers the action semantics and runtime scope, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. It doesn't elaborate on generic parameters (project_path, load_autoloads) but these are common across sibling tools and not critical to the audio-specific behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters with actions (e.g., 'set_param: volume_db/pitch_scale/bus' and 'play: volume_db/pitch_scale') which helps the agent map parameters to the intended action. This goes slightly beyond the schema but remains consistent with it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states '音频操作' (audio operations) and lists four specific actions (play, stop, set_param, query) with their target resources (AudioStreamPlayer/2D/3D). This is a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from sibling tools like animation or physics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states that these are runtime operations affecting only the current execution context, and advises editing the .tscn file for persistence. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively serving as an alternative to sibling tools for persistent changes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.